Calvinists, Arminians, and Theological Questions of Praxis

Unfortunately, we Calvinists have a reputation for wanting to pounce on people with our theology, much like my parents' cat Gracie is ready to pounce on the bunny. It's been good for me to read a couple of books about Calvinism and Arminianism and to take some time to reflect on theology in general.I've been reading two books recently about the Calvinist/Arminian debate. Arminian Theology:Myths and Realities is written by an Arminian, Roger Olson, and Why I Am Not an Arminian is written by two Calvinists from Covenant Theological Seminary.

I've been struck by the fact that the classical positions of both camps have an incredible amount in common and even sound like each other in their choice of words at several areas of "classic disagreement." Like Calvinists, Arminians (following Jacob Arminius) believe that all people are fallen and have no good in them. They believe, however, that God has granted prevenient grace to all to enable them to make a choice to believe in Christ as their Savior or not to believe. They believe that people must have choice (i.e. free-will) because they reason that if people have no choice, God must be the author of evil (i.e. God must have made them choose evil initially). Their primary desire is to protect the character of God - they see God as all-loving and are repulsed by the idea of His ordaining evil. Typically, Calvinists portray Arminians as people who are committed to freedom of choice above all, but the protection of God's character is their primary concern. While I appreciate that they are trying to protect the character of God, I don't think that this system lets God "off the hook" for evil, as He knew evil was coming, can prevent evil, and yet still allows it. They have to appeal to mystery on this point of why he allows evil.

On the other side, we Calvinists typically argue that both free will and God's sovereignty work together. People sin, but their sin is not outside of the purposes and foreordained plan of the Lord. We typically appeal to the mystery of God in how sin came about. The Arminians' caricature of Calvinists often involves us being cold-hearted supralapsarianists (a fancy word meaning people who believe that before anything was said or done in the universe, God set out to save some and damn others). Instead, we would argue that God has created people and that somehow (it is a mystery), evil came about. All people are evil, but by his grace God chooses to save some (the elect). We would respond that God is gracious in saving some and that his not saving others is not an indictment of his character. Although Arminians often say that our system supposes God to be the author of evil, we do not believe this to be true. However, we believe that God uses all things for his glory, even those that seem evil (Rom 8:28, story of Joseph in Gen 39-50, etc.).

There are huge holes in both systems. Both have to appeal significantly to mystery on many points. I tend to think that Arminianism leaves itself more open to more serious doctrinal points of error (open theism, in which God does not know all things to happen in the future; inclusivism, in which Christ's death is necessary for people to get to heaven, but their knowing him is not; pluralism, in which all major religions lead to the same spiritual truth about God) because I think Arminianism overemphasizes God's love and mercy at points. This leads some to ask questions of "how can God allow evil?" and come up with responses like "he must not know all the future" or "he uses other religions to reveal himself too" or any number of other responses. I think, likewise, that it is not as faithful to Scripture, but I have Arminian brothers who obviously hold a different opinion.

To be sure, Calvinism has its problems. There are millions of Calvinists whose beliefs are closer to fatalism than the Biblical Gospel. I've heard so many Calvinists talk about God's power in such a way that missions is not needed and that God will do what he wants with or without my work. That kind of philosophy is not Christian, and it certainly was not the thought of the Apostle Paul, who we Calvinists would argue was a great preacher of the system that has been called Calvinism since the sixteenth century.

Calvinism and Arminianism come so close on so many points, even those held as places of historical disagreement. For instance, Arminians believe that all people are given prevenient grace. Again, this prevenient grace gives them the choice to believe or not to believe. But, many believe that prevenient grace is not given equally to all. That is, some are given more such grace than others. In practice, this is so close to the irresistable grace of the compatibilist Calvinist (like me :) In asserting that God's grace is irresistable grace, I am simply saying that I had no part in my salvation. Every choice I made in my natural, sinful self was bad. I did not and cannot choose God unless he so powefully draws me that it is irresistable. What some have termed "high Calvinism" or satirically "7-point Calvinists", would argue from the perspective that all choices and events are pre-determined from before time began. While I believe that this perspective is used Scripturally to prevent man from taking pride in his salvation (i.e. man truly had no part), using this as an all-encompassing lense to view life through is dangerous and unBiblical. Is this the way we see evangelism done in the book of Acts? Of course not. But some Calvinists seem to take this deterministic framework into every area of life and make everything subject to it, thereby squeezing the mystery out of many things.

I have been most deeply distressed that while there is no Christian witness among thousands of different people groups, men and women have occupied enormous amounts of time trying to split hairs over hermeneutical issues that don't deserve such focus. Is systematic theology important? Absolutely. But the greatest systematic theologian of all time, the apostle Paul, worked out theological issues as he presented the Gospel to new people, in new cities, among new people groups. Systematic theologians in the West for the last few hundred years have typically been university professors. Some have been wonderful examples and have lived a life of minstry while teaching and working out theological method. But many have spent the vast bulk of their time writing and thinking and systematizing. That is dangerous because such thought is often divorced from praxis. Although the guts of the Gospel, its core, does not change, the praxis (or way that is lived out and expressed) varies significantly from culture to culture. These differences bring fodder to the mind for serious theological reflection and the need to draw boundaries about the orthodoxy of thought and praxis.

So, I submit that we need more missionaries, more cross-cultural servants who will take the Gospel and practice it before those who have never heard it. As they practice it and have need to think deeply and to reflect on its natural boundaries, that should provide ample opportunity for systematizing. As well, being confronted by another culture and its set of presuppositions helps one find what is central and important and those things that are less important to defend. Sometimes, Calvinist brothers seem to defend the entire system and all of their thinking as holding the same weight. This is an egregious error because one of the points of maturity is seeing what is most important to defend, what is very important, what is somewhat important, and what is just pure conjecture.